Daniel Hannan for U.S citizenship and a Senate seat

[OSECS]

I saw this earlier today. The man is speaking the gospel truth about what's going on in Great Britain and here in the United States. He's called out his Prime Minister on reckless deficit spending right to his face in Parliament.

Can you just imagine the media here if someone called out President Obama like this in a direct showdown situation ??

Paraphrasing here:

You cannot tax and spend your way out of debt.

you cannot create 30 government jobs to replace 20 or even 30 private sector jobs.

you cannot spend money you do not have.

You've saddled our children with our crushing debt.

You cannot tax every last penny from the productive to pay for the non productive.

His "you know we know, that you know we know" was priceless.

I'd have written more but the tears of joy I've wrung upon hearing an actual politician say these things (even if he is from across the ocean in a completely different country) made me miss some of what he was saying. If I didn't know better I'd have sworn he was addressing our congress and President.

[Downbound Train]

Dude was on Hanity tonight too. He ROCKED Gordon Brown, right to his face!! Where are our versions of this guy?

[Rubicon]

British politicians = bigger balls than American politicians.<golf clap>


That statement was a thing of beauty. If that wasn't speaking truth to power, I don't know what is.

[Downbound Train]

In addition, on Hannity, he said that if The American people could only hear one message he was sending, it would be to NOT go down the Government Healthcare path. There's is a nightmare where the Dr's, Patients and Tax payers lose. Only the Gov. wins. (That's close to a quote)

[Adolf Allerbush]

I saw this earlier today. The man is speaking the gospel truth about what's going on in Great Britain and here in the United States. He's called out his Prime Minister on reckless deficit spending right to his face in Parliament.

Can you just imagine the media here if someone called out President Obama like this in a direct showdown situation ??

Paraphrasing here:

You cannot tax and spend your way out of debt.

you cannot create 30 government jobs to replace 20 or even 30 private sector jobs.

you cannot spend money you do not have.

You've saddled our children with our crushing debt.

You cannot tax every last penny from the productive to pay for the non productive.

His "you know we know, that you know we know" was priceless.

I'd have written more but the tears of joy I've wrung upon hearing an actual politician say these things (even if he is from across the ocean in a completely different country) made me miss some of what he was saying. If I didn't know better I'd have sworn he was addressing our congress and President.

Well, I don't think any politicians out there are advocating the opposite of what you've written...although it may seem that way. But yeah, in order to give conservatives something to get a boner over this guy seems to have found the catch phrases.

I wonder what his solution would be to the economic situation we're in now. I'm guessing do nothing and cut taxes.

[OSECS]

Well, I don't think any politicians out there are advocating the opposite of what you've written...although it may seem that way. But yeah, in order to give conservatives something to get a boner over this guy seems to have found the catch phrases.

I wonder what his solution would be to the economic situation we're in now. I'm guessing do nothing and cut taxes.

What is with you guys and this mantra "cut taxes" ?? I don't believe he advocated anything of the kind. He simply said "no" to more deficit spending. Sometimes you just have to say no. Didn't our parents teach us that when we were kids ?? Sometimes "no" is the correct answer.

First of all many politicians are advocating exactly the opposite of what this man stated (SEE: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al) Secondly, we do need taxes. Third, I would argue we pay more than we should because of the waste many programs incur as they grow. I would also say that right now is not the time to cut taxes, just as it's not the time to raise taxes. We need to upset the apple cart as little as possible until the picture is a little rosier.

How about a little belt tightening by the federal gov't ?? We are in the midst of an economic melt down, and they want to fund social programs even more. Spending an up front amount of $800 billion (for starters). What needs to be spent is the smallest amount (of deficit spending) possible to jump start the economy, so that our children are not saddled with an insurmountable debt repayment. That debt will cause our country to fail at some point. I believe this as surely as I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

A great deal of the problems we are now facing are a result of gov't lack of oversight (coupled with unbridled private sector greed), and in some cases implicate gov't involvement of the problems we are now facing. So we reward them by letting them spend more money ???

What this man was saying is that you cannot spend what you do not have, and you cannot take everything from people who produce to pay for those who will not. The gist of his statement was that gov't needs to make do with what it has at the moment, until the economy levels itself. Spending money you do not have does not alleviate debt.

[Adolf Allerbush]

What is with you guys and this mantra "cut taxes" ?? I don't believe he advocated anything of the kind. He simply said "no" to more deficit spending. Sometimes you just have to say no. Didn't our parents teach us that when we were kids ?? Sometimes "no" is the correct answer.

First of all many politicians are advocating exactly the opposite of what this man stated (SEE: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al) Secondly, we do need taxes. Third, I would argue we pay more than we should because of the waste many programs incur as they grow. I would also say that right now is not the time to cut taxes, just as it's not the time to raise taxes. We need to upset the apple cart as little as possible until the picture is a little rosier.

How about a little belt tightening by the federal gov't ?? We are in the midst of an economic melt down, and they want to fund social programs even more. Spending an up front amount of $800 billion (for starters). What needs to be spent is the smallest amount (of deficit spending) possible to jump start the economy, so that our children are not saddled with an insurmountable debt repayment. That debt will cause our country to fail at some point. I believe this as surely as I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

A great deal of the problems we are now facing are a result of gov't lack of oversight (coupled with unbridled private sector greed), and in some cases implicate gov't involvement of the problems we are now facing. So we reward them by letting them spend more money ???

What this man was saying is that you cannot spend what you do not have, and you cannot take everything from people who produce to pay for those who will not. The gist of his statement was that gov't needs to make do with what it has at the moment, until the economy levels itself. Spending money you do not have does not alleviate debt.

I agree man...and what I meant is that many policy's seem to be advocating the opposite of what this man has said...I admit that the dems are often times the culprits. But I doubt they came out and said opposite of what you wrote...I invite you to find a quote and prove me wrong.

and, I agree with him in principal...but I also think something needs to be done to stimulate the economy. Simply "tightening the belt" won't cut it IMO. Then again it doesn't really matter what I think.

[OSECS]

I agree man...and what I meant is that many policy's seem to be advocating the opposite of what this man has said...I admit that the dems are often times the culprits. But I doubt they came out and said opposite of what you wrote...I invite you to find a quote and prove me wrong.

and, I agree with him in principal...but I also think something needs to be done to stimulate the economy. Simply "tightening the belt" won't cut it IMO. Then again it doesn't really matter what I think.

AA, I really don't need to quote anyone (not trying to rudely side step your question), just look at the stimulus bill signed by President Obama. Everything Hannan said gov't shouldn't do was approved overwhelmingly by a democratically controlled congress. To be fair though, both parties spend to much because it helps their power bases. How much of that bill do you think is absolutely crucial to jump starting the economy, and how much do you think is pork (I hate that term, but it's applicable)?????

I don't have time to look for quotes, but I'll ask you, when have you ever heard anyone dem or repub. so eloquently vocalize the sentiments this man did ?? For the life of me though , I can't remember a modern dem. ever standing up for less spending. The entire democratic platform right now is controlled by a very liberal wing that feels bigger gov't is the answer. Bigger gov't means more spending.

So to stimulate the economy we're going to fund youth programs complete with uniforms, camps and increased spending for youth "volunteers" (just one quick example of spending that will not stimulate the economy).

[Tippster]

Corollary:

You cannot wage war to make Peace.
You cannot threaten to make safe.
You cannot legislate personal choice.
You cannot restrict to make free.

Right?

[Rubicon]

Well, I don't think any politicians out there are advocating the opposite of what you've written...

Obama and congress are.





I wonder what his solution would be to the economic situation we're in now. I'm guessing do nothing and cut taxes.

What could the government do to get you to spend more money than you are right now?

[Adolf Allerbush]

Obama and congress are.

Find a quote please...otherwise that's just like, your opinion man.


What could the government do to get you to spend more money than you are right now?

Start a bunch of public works projects that my company would work on securing employment for me and millions of others. How about you?

[Adolf Allerbush]

AA, I really don't need to quote anyone (not trying to rudely side step your question)

I understand what you're saying. Because they are spending money in the stimulus package that then is them "saying" opposite of what dudeman said. However, my point is that no politician, be it dem or repub, would say opposite of what dudeman has been quoted.

[Rubicon]

Corollary:

You cannot wage war to make Peace.
You cannot threaten to make safe.
You cannot legislate personal choice.
You cannot restrict to make free.

Right?

Only if peace were the result of too much war, like debt is the result of too much spending.

Only if safety were the result of too much threatening, like debt is the result of too much spending.

Only if personal choice existed as a result of legislation in the same way that public sector jobs exist as a result of the productivity of private sector jobs.

[OSECS]

Corollary:

You cannot wage war to make Peace.
You cannot threaten to make safe.
You cannot legislate personal choice.
You cannot restrict to make free.

Right?


1. A confusing statement, sometimes no, in other cases yes. The world has always been at war so the no cases outweigh the yes.

2. Monroe doctrine, walk softly and carry a big stick, MAD, When did you ever see a stronger country attacked by a much weaker one ??

3. Tell that to the current Congress and Presidential administration.

4. I'm not even sure what you're driving at here, but see the above answer. Because the more restrictions we have placed on our society the less free we are (SEE: mandatory volunteer program as currently schemed by the current Congress and administration, gov't ability to nationalize any industry it deems in necessary, retroactive taxes). (Yes, since reading the transcripts of the bill I've changed my mind on this bit over over legislation)

[Adolf Allerbush]

3. Tell that to the current Congress and Presidential administration.

So, the reason we're at war in Iraq and Afganistan is because the current president and congress started those wars. Right. Dude, come on.

[Tippster]

I was going with abortion, gay marriage, and Marijuana... but whatever. I do think that overall "Conservatives" are more likely to legislate personal choice than "liberals."

OSECS: is a Bully more "safe" than an ally/friend?

[Rubicon]

Find a quote please...otherwise that's just like, your opinion man.

There won't be exact quotes, they aren't that stupid. But what they are doing is exactly that.





Start a bunch of public works projects that my company would work on securing employment for me and millions of others.

So, taking money from productive people(tax payers) and giving it to you would get you to spend money?



How about you?

Stop meddling on the private sector and cut taxes. I have some idea of what I believe makes this economy run, and this congress and president are doing all the wrong things.

With things coming out of Washington like "everybody needs some skin in the game" and "we all need to sacrifice" that makes me want to save every penny I have because I don't know what is coming down the pike. Until I do, I'm not spending anything I don't have to, and I don't think I am alone in that sentiment.

[OSECS]

I was going with abortion, gay marriage, and Marijuana... but whatever. I do think that overall "Conservatives" are more likely to legislate personal choice than "liberals."

OSECS: is a Bully more "safe" than an ally/friend?

Well as this thread was about spending money you don't have, this seems to sway from that a bit. I won't argue that conservatives are more likely to be more narrow in what they want a society to allow. I happen to believe in some of them, and am conflicted on others.(early) Abortion is a lesser evil than a child growing up abused or worse, I have gay friends, but am opposed to gay marriage, but am in favor of some type of civil union being recognized to protect life partners legal commitment to one another. I support NORMAL but know that one more legal drug is one more problem for abuse and trouble. Alcohol has proven that to be true. Someones freedoms/rights are always gonna be trampled on. A society must decide if the rights of a few outweigh the collective.

A society needs to protect itself from itself. Many people who can't handle all the temptations life throws at them are the very ones that many liberals claim need our support the most. The more society loosens its standards the easier it is to loosen them yet more still. What was outlandish becomes acceptable. At what point do you cry enough ??

We are safe from allies, and you don't build your military to protect your country against allies, but there are bullies out there, always, that must be defended against. What would the world be like today if the USSR or China were the predominant super powers instead of America ?? Do you think any of the above rights would be protected ?? (SEE jack Nicholsons witness stand rant in "A Few Good Men") ;)

[Adolf Allerbush]

So, taking money from productive people(tax payers) and giving it to you would get you to spend money?

They're not giving tax payers money to me. Look, I work in an industry that helps build transportation infrastructure. Without gubment there would be none or very fucked up transportation. Sorry that's what I do for a living...but guess what? I too pay taxes.

So, what would you like me to do instead of work on these types of projects? What would be a legit business to be in according to your principals? Do you enjoy roads? Do you like bridges not failing? Do you like to have access to tap water? Do you flush your toilet? Do you take showers? Fucking shit man...why do conservatives not understand that those things require tax money?

And sorry, to answer your question, yes, I need tax payer money (from productive people like myself) to pay for public works projects to keep me employed. That in turn gives me a pay check which, guess what, gives me the ability to spend money. Hope I baby stepped you through that ok.

It's fun being intentionally dense isn't it?

Sorry, one more question for you...what do you do for a living? Do you use any transportation infrastructure to conduct your business? do you use water? etc.? If we don't tax to pay for these things how would your company/business/whatever function?

[OSECS]

So, the reason we're at war in Iraq and Afganistan is because the current president and congress started those wars. Right. Dude, come on.

No, did I say that somewhere ?? I'm not sure what your question is based on.

3. was you cannot legislate personal choice. What does that have to do with war in your question ??

[Adolf Allerbush]

my bad...thought you were making points about all of the statements tip listed...

[Rubicon]

They're not giving tax payers money to me. Look, I work in an industry that helps build transportation infrastructure. Without gubment there would be none or very fucked up transportation. Sorry that's what I do for a living...but guess what? I too pay taxes.

So, what would you like me to do instead of work on these types of projects? What would be a legit business to be in according to your principals? Do you enjoy roads? Do you like bridges not failing? Do you like to have access to tap water? Do you flush your toilet? Do you take showers? Fucking shit man...why do conservatives not understand that those things require tax money?

I'm sorry. I should have been more careful about how I worded that. I wasn't trying to upset you. I was pointing out that the government can't stimulate the economy with spending. Sure they can stimulate one sector or another. But every dollar they spend is a dollar somebody else doesn't have anymore. All they are doing is shifting money around and wasting a lot of it in the process. It's a zero sum game.

[OSECS]

my bad...thought you were making points about all of the statements tip listed...

I did. Maybe you just copied the wrong quote or something.

[Adolf Allerbush]

I did. Maybe you just copied the wrong quote or something.

I didn't realize you were doing so in order...you numbered to correspond to what line he had written. Your statement makes sense to me now. Sorry, little slow this morning.

[Rubicon]

Sorry, one more question for you...what do you do for a living? Do you use any transportation infrastructure to conduct your business? do you use water? etc.? If we don't tax to pay for these things how would your company/business/whatever function?

I had a window cleaning business for ~15 years. Then I retired on money I made trading in the futures markets. Then the economy crashed and due to the nature of my trading system I got hit hard, so I am back washing windows while I build back up my trading to be able to live on it again.

FWIW I think our infrastructure spending should be 2-3 times what it is. It's absurd that a country with as much money as we have has problems with it's infrastructure. So I have no problem whatsoever with tax money going to your industry, I think there should be more of it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Downbound Train]

I didn't realize you were doing so in order...you numbered to correspond to what line he had written. Your statement makes sense to me now. Sorry, little slow this morning.

Can you two get a room?

[Smokey McPole]

Adolf - did you suffer a recent head injury? I mean - I've mostly disagreed with you in the past, but at least you were somewhat interesting to get in a shit-flinging contest with. But lately it's like reading the rantings of a retarded AIDS victim with Tourrette's Syndrome. I'm not even going to attempt to go back and quote all the incredibly stupid shit you've typed in thisee-here thread, so I'll just point this jem out:



I wonder what his solution would be to the economic situation we're in now. I'm guessing do nothing and cut taxes.

"Cutting taxes" is doing something. It's impossible to "do nothing" and "cut taxes". By "cutting taxes" you are doing something.

Your quote is retarded on many other levels, but I'll just concentrate on this one for now.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Adolf - did you suffer a recent head injury? I mean - I've mostly disagreed with you in the past, but at least you were somewhat interesting to get in a shit-flinging contest with. But lately it's like reading the rantings of a retarded AIDS victim with Tourrette's Syndrome. I'm not even going to attempt to go back and quote all the incredibly stupid shit you've typed in thisee-here thread, so I'll just point this jem out:



"Cutting taxes" is doing something. It's impossible to "do nothing" and "cut taxes". By "cutting taxes" you are doing something.

Your quote is retarded on many other levels, but I'll just concentrate on this one for now.

Oh my god you totally pwnd me.

Where you been Jerry? fucking Rush's cornpipe?

[Smokey McPole]

Oh my god you totally pwnd me.



I don't have to - you pwn yourself.

I just got done listening to Rush at maximum volume.
http://davekellogg.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/rush-2112.jpg
Pretty relevant album too.

[f2f]

best tongue-lashing ever!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d92_1238051026

[OSECS]

best tongue-lashing ever!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d92_1238051026

Tears of joy streaming freely down my cheeks !!